Writs Analysis
1. Constitutional Foundation and Purpose
Writs are legal instruments grounded in Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian
Constitution, enabling the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively, to
enforce fundamental rights. They function as a safeguard mechanism, giving
citizens direct access to judicial remedies when their rights are violated.
● Article 32 is referred to as the "heart and soul of the Constitution" (Dr.
B.R. Ambedkar), underlining its critical role.
● Article 226 gives broader powers to High Courts, as they can issue writs
not just for Fundamental Rights, but also for other legal rights.
2. Classification and Function of Writs
The five types of writs serve distinct legal purposes:
a. Habeas Corpus (“to have the body”)
● Purpose: Protection of personal liberty by challenging unlawful
detention.
● Scope: Can be filed by anyone on behalf of the detained.
● Applicable Against: Both public authorities and individuals.
● Limitations: Not applicable when the arrest is under lawful jurisdiction.
● Landmark Case:
○ Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration expanded its use to include
protection during detention.
○ ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (Habeas Corpus case): a
controversial judgment suspending habeas corpus during
Emergency.
Significance: A powerful tool against illegal state action. Its misuse
or suspension, as in the ADM Jabalpur case, represents a
constitutional low point.
b. Mandamus (“we command”)
● Purpose: To compel performance of public duty.
● Applicable Against: Government, public officials, statutory bodies.
● Not Applicable Against: Private individuals, President, Governors, Chief
Justice.
● Exceptions:
○ Discretionary duties
○ Non-statutory functions
○ Private matters
○ If alternative remedies exist
● Key Cases:
○ Suganmal v. State of M.P: Writ not allowed if alternative remedy
exists.
Significance: Promotes accountability of public authorities but its
availability is subject to strict preconditions.
c. Certiorari (“to be certified”)
● Purpose: Quashing decisions of lower courts or tribunals that acted
beyond their jurisdiction.
● Scope: Curative writ to correct jurisdictional or procedural errors.
● Applicable Against: Judicial, quasi-judicial, and post-1991,
administrative authorities.
● Not Applicable Against: Private individuals.
● Grounds:
○ Lack/excess of jurisdiction
○ Violation of natural justice
○ Procedural irregularity
● Procedure: Involves filing a writ petition and judicial scrutiny of lower
court proceedings.
● Important Cases:
○ Yekoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan: Not for appeal.
○ Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath: Clarified Article 227's role.
Significance: Ensures judicial discipline and rule of law, but is
reactive (post-decision).
d. Quo Warranto (“by what authority”)
● Purpose: Prevents unauthorized occupation of public office.
● Scope: Checks abuse of executive appointments.
● Conditions:
○ Public office must be statutory
○ Person must be unauthorized or unqualified
● Not Applicable Against: Private individuals.
● Important Cases:
○ University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao: Must be statutory office.
Significance: A watchdog writ that upholds the sanctity of public
appointments.
e. Prohibition (“to forbid”)
● Purpose: Preventive writ issued to lower courts/tribunals to stop
exceeding their jurisdiction.
● Opposite of Mandamus: It stops rather than compels action.
● Conditions:
○ Jurisdictional excess
○ Violation of natural justice
○ Application of invalid law
● Not Applicable Against: Legislative or administrative bodies, private
parties.
● Notable Cases:
○ Hari Vishnu v. Syed Ahmed Ishaque: Cannot be issued
post-judgment.
○ Prudential Capital Markets v. State of A.P.: Not valid after
execution.
Significance: Aims to contain judicial overreach and protect due
process.
3. General Observations
● Writs empower citizens and limit state excess.
● The judiciary's proactive role is crucial in maintaining democratic values.
● The efficacy of writs depends on accessibility, judicial integrity, and
public awareness.
4. Critical Reflections
● Strengths:
○ Foundational for constitutional democracy
○ Strong tool against arbitrary state action
○ Empower common citizens without needing exhaustive litigation
● Weaknesses:
○ Sometimes inaccessible to the poor or legally unaware
○ Delays in judicial process may undermine effectiveness
○ Scope limitations (e.g., alternative remedy bar in Mandamus) may
restrict justice
■
